Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] iotests: add testfinder.py

[John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>]

On 5/7/20 1:43 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 21.04.2020 19:56, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 21.04.2020 um 09:35 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
>>> Add python script with new logic of searching for tests:
>>>
>>> Current ./check behavior:
>>>   - tests are named [0-9][0-9][0-9]
>>>   - tests must be registered in group file (even if test doesn't belong
>>>     to any group, like 142)
>>>
>>> Behavior of new test:
>>>   - group file is dropped
>>>   - tests are searched by file-name instead of group file, so it's not
>>>     needed more to "register the test", just create it with name
>>>     *-test. Old names like [0-9][0-9][0-9] are supported too, but not
>>>     recommended for new tests
>>
>> I wonder if a tests/ subdirectory instead of the -test suffix would
>> organise things a bit better.
>>
> 
> It will make more difficult to import iotests.py.. Calling common.rc from
> bash tests will need to be modified too.
> 
> So, we'll need additional line in all python tests:
> 
> sys.path.append(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), '..'))
> 
> which doesn't seem to be good practice.. So, instead we'd better call
> tests with PYTHONPATH set appropriately..
> 

Just chiming in to say that it's largely bad practice because it
confuses pylint, mypy and friends -- if we want to keep pushing our CI
code analysis for python in that direction, this will be a barrier.

Using PYTHONPATH is better, because it isolates the script itself from
the environment, but requires you to now always set PYTHONPATH to
execute any of the individual iotests.

Not actually a big deal, because iotests already expect a large number
of environment variables to be set. It's not really a huge net loss in
convenience, I think.

looks like that's the direction you're headed in anyway based on
discussion, so that's good.

--js